Proof‐of‐concept of a data‐driven approach to estimate the associations of comorbid mental and physical disorders with global health‐related disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The standard method of generating disorder‐specific disability scores has lay raters make rankings between pairs of disorders based on brief disorder vignettes. This method introduces bias due to differential rater knowledge of disorders and inability to disentangle the disability due to disorders from the disability due to comorbidities. Methods We propose an alternative, data‐driven, method of generating disorder‐specific disability scores that assesses disorders in a sample of individuals either from population medical registry data or population survey self‐reports and uses Generalized Random Forests (GRF) to predict global (rather than disorder‐specific) disability assessed by clinician ratings or by survey respondent self‐reports. This method also provides a principled basis for studying patterns and predictors of heterogeneity in disorder‐specific disability. We illustrate this method by analyzing data for 16 disorders assessed in the World Mental Health Surveys (n = 53,645). Results Adjustments for comorbidity decreased estimates of disorder‐specific disability substantially. Estimates were generally somewhat higher with GRF than conventional multivariable regression models. Heterogeneity was nonsignificant. Conclusions The results show clearly that the proposed approach is practical, and that adjustment is needed for comorbidities to obtain accurate estimates of disorder‐specific disability. Expansion to a wider range of disorders would likely find more evidence for heterogeneity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".